I have a pesky friend.He knows me well enough to hold me accountable when I stray off my intellectual path. Conversely, by steadily bouncing a rich and varied stream of ideas off me, he helps in the process of refining my personal philosophy. My friend possess a scary intellect, that alone earns my respect. He also shares a few of my irrational insecurities, which earns my confidence. I trust few people in this world, yet I trust my friend. I would be a fool not to.
All he need do to get me thinking is drop me a link or a note. He knows I will take the bait if it is presented correctly. I'm confident that is what he's done here again. I've been trying to define my atheism for years. And contrary to some of my more acerbic posts, I am not evangelical about my atheism. What people believe, or who they believe in is their own business - as long as they don't try to impose their moral world view on me.
If I had any faith at all I would be a Christian, but I have none, not even a little bit, and I hold no hope of ever having any. Yet, to a certain extent I am spiritual. I meditate (normally with cigar in hand), I am awed by the natural wonders of our planet, and... science and the pursuit of knowledge are central tenets of my life. I don't like to use the term, but I am a religious atheist. Who knew? My friend did.
He provided me with a link to "How to be a religious atheist". In the article, Tom Clark is interviewed for Science & Theology News. Tom is asked: Do you consider yourself to be a religious or a scientific person, or both?
I would say both. Naturalism, being based in science, certainly doesn’t preclude one from having religious feelings or impulses or experiences. Religious naturalism is alive and well. In fact, it’s a growing movement these days. So I certainly count myself as a religious naturalist, among other things. I’m not religious in an observant sense, but, nevertheless, I have and seek out experiences that would be called religious in any liberal definition of the term, even though they don’t involve any notion of divinity, apart from nature.
Source: Science & Theology News - How to be a religious atheist
Check - this answer is in alignment with my position. I was cautious but intrigued. The next question set the hook: Could you name any examples of those experiences?
Well, for instance, in meditation, which I do, one can feel transported certainly. There are routes to ecstasy that have to do with dance, or music, with making love, with all sorts of activities that, when you’re fully involved with them, can lead to a feeling of connection, and certainly, even the intellectual appreciation of our situation in this amazing cosmos, just sitting and thinking about the sheer fact of existence can trigger, sometimes, a mild, spiritual, a mild enlightenment, shall we say. So there are certainly many ways in which a naturalistic spirituality can be expressed, both by oneself and in connection with other people.
Source: Science & Theology News - How to be a religious atheist
Mild enlightenment - I call in illumination. It comes from music, from art, from photography, from the beauty of women, from the connection I share with my wife, from the view atop Glacier Point, from solving a complex systems problem, or most importantly, from simply thinking.
A few years ago, while spending a day alone in the Musee de Orsay, I happened upon Seurat's "The Circus". I was transfixed. An hour passed before I could take my eyes from his glorious work. The connection was spiritual - I dream about this painting to this day. Science will never explain why beauty of this magnitude can move me so.
So... I have more to think about. Naturalism sounds about right to me.
6 comments:
Now you've got me thinking about Gnosticism. Maybe I'm wrong about atheism as a religion. Or maybe we're just confusing ourselves with labels.
Nice post Sir..Well talk.
Yes, there is lots of beauty in the world and lots to be in awe of. If your naturalist friends are right, however, what I just said is not true. There is no beauty "out there," just your internal experience of something as beautiful, which is the result of meaningless physical processes in your body.
It is certainly conceivable that that could be the way things are. But is that a satisfying explanation to you? Sometimes our intuitions are pointers toward the truth. Maybe that is a satisfying explanation to you, but I would doubt it given what you wrote in this post. If naturalism is a correct description of reality, then it also seems that there are no such things as authentic feelings or experiences. Drop LSD or smoke pot, and those feelings and experiences are no more genuine than any other; it's just a matter of somewhat different brain chemistry. Am I misunderstanding somehow?
What's more, if human behavior is merely the result of impersonal forces, then why are you so down on Dobson? There's no "him" there, is there, just a stimulus-response mechanism, and "he" is just living out the effects of prior events that he had no control over (nor anyone else). In a strictly natural world, how are things "good" or "bad" in an absolute sense? If the response is made that nothing is good or bad absolutely but only relatively to us as individuals or society, then why shouldn't Dobson's morality win out? It's a zero-sum game no matter what happens.
If I have misunderstood you or naturalism or if you think I've made an error in reasoning, I am always open to being corrected.
P.S., I don't read or listen to Dobson, and really have nothing to do with him. It's only your merciless personal attacks that are driving me to defend him!
Agkyra – words are powerful, when these same words are broadcast to millions they become even more so. Add to this the ability to focus an army of followers to repeat your words to whoever will listen, and what you have is the ability for good or evil on a grand scale. James Dobson routinely and relentlessly attacks the rights that I hold dear through his attacks on the weak in our nation. My “merciless attacks” on Dobson are focused on highlighting the harm he is perpetrating on our country. I’m playing nice. He’s earned worse treatment.
Agkyra – Naturalism is a new concept for me. I’m stilling thinking my way through it. Suffice it to say that your assertion that naturalism is somehow faith based is incorrect. The mystery of the chemical process which facilitates my intelligence and provides the ability to see the mysteries that surround through the lens of science gives me great comfort. I human machine without the need for the metaphysical construct of God. I have more to learn – I’ll get back to you when I do.
The post at my blog, and comments, should help clarify how naturalism can only be embraced as an article of faith. The gist of it is that the tenets of naturalism are not themselves the results of scientific inquiry.
Post a Comment